I assure you, it was just an oversight in what was a much-too-quickly written post. Videotaping your hot girlfriend taking her clothes off for the world to see to help get Ron Paul elected definitely qualifies as crazy enough.

Thanks for the credit. It’s nice to know I contributed somewhere somehow.

I am deeply hurt to have been left off of your “crazy shit for Ron Paul” list. I mean, no one could argue that it’s not shit… so I guess you must be saying that it’s not crazy enough to make your list?

More to the point, I think your readers should know that the whole Ron Paul Girl thing was your idea. We’ve gotten over a half a million views and lots of emails from people saying that they had never heard of Ron Paul before but had checked him out because of our videos and liked what he had to say– and ultimately you deserve a lot of the credit for that.

Thanks for your comments. I have posted a response in the comments section of A vegan’s case for Ron Paul.

Diana

Well said. You have expressed my feelings about libertarianism much better than I did in my long rambling rants on other posts. There is too much room for the poor and sick to become even more disenfranchised than they already are.

Katherine

In your “the vegan case for Ron Paul”, you talked about how anti-cruelty laws legislate morality. Do you consider anti-child abuse statutes legislating morality? Don’t you believe that animals, just as human children, have a right to freedom from cruelty? Is it legislating morality to outlaw murder? Isn’t it the proper exercise of government to protect people’s rights to physical integrity? If you believe in animal rights then wouldn’t anti-cruelty legislation also be a proper exercise of government? I don’t mean this offensively but your argument appears to smack of speciesism.

I think you could easily reconcile an animal rights view with libertarianism. In some ways, they are very similar in their reliance on a notion of rights.

However I don’t agree with libertarianism, and here’s why. Basically I think human welfare trumps personal freedom sometimes. In other words, I believe not only in negative rights but positive rights as well. I think every person is entitled to a decent life: clothing, shelter, food, medicine, healthcare, etc. And I think that the initiation of coercion against individuals to assure it is a proper exercise of government.

I would still believe in ‘human rights’ even if our present society had developed without having violated anyone’s rights. But it is worth noting that our current society’s distribution of existing wealth and power is the result of centuries of massive injustice. In light of this, a good argument could be made that the government has a proper role in remedying some of that injustice.

If I could be convinced that basic human rights could be assured without government, I would be on board with libertarians all the way. I don’t think there is much evidence to suggest that this would happen. 10% of families own about 70% of the nation’s net worth. 40% of families of own about 1%.

Thanks,
Martin

My favorite so far has to be the blimp. Once that thing launches, there’s no way that the media can ignore it.

Telling the FEC to eat it by creating a for-profit LLC and removing any monetary limits that may be in place is brilliant on at least two levels. One, it breaks new ground in campaign finance and is a story in itself (which gets Ron Paul extra publicity).

But on top of that, any response by the FEC, if they were so inclined to put the kibosh on the blimp is ANOTHER story which gets Ron Paul’s name out there.

Genius, pure genius.

btw nice blog, I don’t know if you pay attention to things like this, but I found your blog because I’m listed right above yours over at Liv’s blogroll.